Traditionally, the number of major Puranas is eighteen – all of which attribute their authorship to Vyasa, who is identified with the author of the Mahabharata. Many people believe all of these Puranas were authored by a single individual and have preserved their original form, to the present.
The reality however, is quite different. Here are some notes drawn mainly from Hazra’s meticulous work on the Puranas.
1. Purana is a species of Indian literature that reaches back to great antiquity. Along with Itihasa, it finds mention in the Atharva Veda, Shatapatha Brahmana, Gopatha Brahmana and various other ancient sources.
2. The theory of an original single Purana is open to doubt. It is very likely that multiple Puranas existed before the beginning of the Christian era. The Samhitas of Manu and Yajnavalkya use the term Purana in the plural number. The Apastamba Dharmasutra (4th Century BCE) quotes from a Bhavishyat Purana. Bhavishyat Purana is an oxymoron, which offers an important piece of evidence that during the time of Apastamba, the original meaning of Purana was replaced as a designation for a class of literature. This indicates the existence of multiple Puranas, each distinctly named by this time. Notably, the Mahabharata calls itself a Purana.
3. However, the existence of multiple Puranas during Apastamba’s times, does not mean the present canon of eighteen Puranas was in existence back then. As a matter of fact, no evidence is available to date these Puranas prior to the third century CE. The list of eighteen Puranas, which appears twice in the Mahabharata, is decidedly spurious as it is not found in several manuscripts.
4. It is not known what the original Purana(s) treated. The Amarakosha (4th or 7th Century CE) defines the content of a Purana to consist of the following five characteristics – creation, re-creation, genealogy, cosmic cycles and royal dynasties. This may have been true for Puranas during the time of the Amarakosha, but present Puranas – either partially or totally – lack these characteristics, instead primarily containing social and religious matter.
5. Over a period of time, Puranas lost their original character and transformed into codes of Hindu rites and customs pertaining to Varnashrama Dharma, Achara, Shradha, Prayaschitta, Daana, Pooja, Vrata, Tirtha, etc. In most cases, the original material is lost as tradition demanded that they be constantly revised to match contemporary beliefs and practices.
6. The accounts of kings and genealogies were little cared for and often fabricated. Sections on holy places were composed by different authors at different times and locations and freely attached to Puranas as their integral parts. People took several liberties with content and consequently textual corruption abounded (Vayu is a case of extensive damage).
7. An intriguing fact is every major Purana contains the list of eighteen Puranas. As there exist several other Puranas, claiming authorship of Vyasa, it is possible that there was a formal redaction where the set of eighteen major Puranas were selected out of a bigger list of Puranas – at which time, the list of these eighteen was inserted into each of them. This may have been part of or similar to the process by which the Mahabharata was organized into eighteen books, the Gita into eighteen chapters, etc. Unlike other Puranas, the Vayu sometimes appears in some lists by its name and in some others as the “Shaiva” Purana. While, early Smriti writers are clear on this identity, some later writers have incorrectly confounded the Shaiva Purana with the Shiva Purana – a minor Purana.
8. A sectarian classification is found in some Vaishnava Puranas, by which Puranas are classified as Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic. Naturally, the Vaishnava Puranas consider themselves Sattvic, Shaiva Puranas as Tamasic and all others as Rajasic. This is clearly a later Vaishnava inclusion, as no mention of such a classification is found in non-Vaishnava Puranas.
– Shiv Somashekhar
General 